Filed under: Spy Photos, Trucks/Pickups, Ford
New 2010 Ford 4.4-liter diesel engine scooped!
by Michael Harley on Apr 13th 2008 at 9:15AM 
At last week's dealer show in Las Vegas, a picture of Ford's upcoming 4.4-liter V8 diesel powerplant was leaked to the Internet... ouch. The new powerplant is hardly a secret (we were reporting the first hints of it in June 2006, and the legal issues surrounding the engine in June 2007), but this is the first time the public has seen a photo of the new diesel in its metallic flesh.
Designed to offer comparable acceleration to the current 5.4-liter gasoline Triton, the new engine should be rated at about 330 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque. Fuel economy is expected to be around 20% better than the gas-fed Triton. To meet tough emission standards, a NOx after-treatment called "aqueous urea" will be injected into the hot exhaust stream. While the additive cleans up the tailpipe exhaust, it will also be another fluid the consumer will have to maintain (Ford is promising the "urea tank" will only need replenishing during oil changes). Although it doesn't look very attractive sitting naked on a stand atop the garish hotel carpet, you had better get used to seeing this V8 around town. Ford is saying that after a debut in the F-150 midway through the 2010 model year, we can expect the engine to follow in the Expedition, Navigator, E-Series vans, and F-Series SuperDuty.
Gallery: Ford 4.4-liter Diesel
[Source: F150online via Pickuptruck.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Billy C. 9:34AM (4/13/2008)
Why do diesel pickups still stink so much? I thought that problem was supposed to be solved.
Reply
Mazdamia 10:09AM (4/13/2008)
It's the drivers :)
DKB_SATX 10:27AM (4/13/2008)
As much as mazdamia's comment was supposed to be snarky, it has merit in many cases. It's popular sport here in PickupLand to modify diesel pickups so they dump more fuel than designed, creating big stinking sooty clouds along with a little more power and a lot more noise. This is often accompanied with the installation of truckNuts.
HotRodzNKustoms 11:16AM (4/13/2008)
Well being among those in crazy diesel tuning land my truck smelled like propane when it was stock reprogrammed the computer and did some exhaust work and now it smells like a old diesel and blows black smoke like a big rig but boy does it go like a bat out of hell.
Chris 7:17PM (4/13/2008)
Thanks for the carcinogenic particulates, HotRodz.
Randy 11:35AM (4/14/2008)
Aren't we all guilty here? Does anyone here ride a bicycle everywhere unless there is an emergency? I'm treading carefully here but doesn't picking on HotRod automatically contain a wee bit of hypocrisy?
With that said, I'd still like to re-channel the exhaust of every old smelly diesel back into the cabin so the person who dealt it can "smell-t" it. Sort of speak!
User 8:55PM (4/18/2008)
Nice use of literary imagery, HotRodz. I give you an A+
LOL
But I gotta ding your grade down for killing my children's children's environment. :D So... B-
Mother Trucker 10:29AM (4/13/2008)
Say what you will about the current PowerStroke engines, but a contract is a contract and in this case it looks like Navistar has the upper hand. This should be interesting to watch unfold.
Reply
Scott 10:58AM (4/13/2008)
Screw the f-150, put it in the mustang, taurus, and fusion
that would be badass!
Reply
BassClef 12:21PM (4/13/2008)
A diesel Mustang would not only get great mileage, but with the low revs and high torque of said motor it would behave more like a muscle car. Heck, my dad loves his Ram 2500 Cummins partly because he can lay rubber for as long as his foot is in the throttle. Who cares if you can only go 95 when you have 610lb-ft at 1600RPM?
paul34 11:43PM (4/13/2008)
Consider the weight balance implications.
DanMan 11:09AM (4/13/2008)
Scott,
Imagine small diesels in the Town Car, Grand Marquis, and Crown Victoria. Good mpg and higher hp! I'd love to see an option like this in all large American sedans, it would give us more choice than Mercedes.
I hope Dodge and Ford actually build some small diesels in the half-ton market, hell I'd be interested in small non-turbo diesels making about the same hp as the big 3s truck V6s, the mpg would be insane and great for us guys who only need the truck to haul cargo not pull a freaking 5th wheel or horse trailer.
Reply
Ted Kennedy Is My Chauffer 11:10AM (4/13/2008)
It will be intersting to see how many consumers will pay the additional $X,000 to purchase the diesel and are then surprised at the cost to replace the "aqueous urea" at every oil change, the 35-40% more they pay for diesel fuel, all in the name of gaining 20% better mileage. There are obvious torque advantages, but most people don't fully utilize the power of the Triton as it is.
Reply
WetheSheeple 1:50PM (4/13/2008)
Nicely said. Agree 100%
Buckus 4:26PM (4/13/2008)
I'm with you on this. Around town here, Diesel is currently $4.00+, which is 25% higher than regular unleaded. If the diesel engine gets 20% better mileage, than you're losing money on this deal. Especially when you factor in the extra upfront costs of purchasing the diesel and the extra maintenance costs of replenishing the aqueous urea. For truck drivers who do real hauling this could be an interesting choice, but for everyone else it's just a waste of money at this point.
Doug 11:31AM (4/13/2008)
"it will also be another fluid the consumer will have to maintain"
This isn't just Ford. Every new diesel from every manufacturer is getting some form of this system.
Reply
Mike Levine 11:40AM (4/13/2008)
Some new diesels don't require urea to reduce NOx. The Dodge Ram's new 6.7-liter Cummins exhaust system uses an "adsorber" catalyst made from precious metals (like a catalytic converter) instead of urea. Upside is no refills - it's almost maintenance free. Downside is the metals (platinum, paladium, rhodium) can rapidly change in price.
Jeff Banks 4:00PM (4/13/2008)
"it will also be another fluid the consumer will have to maintain"
Seriously, you just dump more in. The dealer does it for you, even.
Nobody changes their own oil anymore anyway. No way an average consumer would even know about this.
nagmashot 11:55AM (4/13/2008)
that torque number seems a little bit to low...
The Audi 4.2l V8 diesel produce 326hp and 750Nm(553ft.lbs) and this engine is avaible since some years..
Reply
MikeW 3:54PM (4/13/2008)
What if it is actually low?
It seems as if Ford went with power for this engine, while GM is going torque with their 4.5 V8. (expected 315hp, 525ft-lbs)
Twin-turbo vs. mono-turbo
What kind of transmission, please tell me something bigger/better than the ZF 6hp28, considering that it is supposed to be a 2010.5 model.